National Archives under threat?

[MarieC]

I'm somewhat dismayed by this.  I have three objections:

1.  We the people of a country own these public assets.  I don't believe they should be alienated from our ownership for short-term political gain.

2.  I've observed privatisations both here in Oz and in the UK.  Very often, they seem to operate less efficiently than they did in public ownership.

3.  Usually the cost of things goes up once an organisation is privatised.  I think we should all get all the PCC wills that we can, because if privatisation occurs, they will be much more expensive.

I believe a country's National Archives belong to the people in general - not to a private company.  If there was a similar proposal in Australia, I would be protesting long and loud!

MarieC

[Joyful]

I agree completely Marie...I, too, would be complaining long and hard

if it happened here  in Oz.

Joy

[LizzieW]

I think this is in danger of becoming too political now.

It was political from post number 1, but there is nothing in the rules about polical comments.   It is topical though, and the discussion has been very polite and civilised.

But rather one-sided and I feel uncomfortable with this, so I will bow out of this thread.

[Redroger]

I'm somewhat dismayed by this.  I have three objections:

1.  We the people of a country own these public assets.  I don't believe they should be alienated from our ownership for short-term political gain.

2.  I've observed privatisations both here in Oz and in the UK.  Very often, they seem to operate less efficiently than they did in public ownership.

3.  Usually the cost of things goes up once an organisation is privatised.  I think we should all get all the PCC wills that we can, because if privatisation occurs, they will be much more expensive.

I believe a country's National Archives belong to the people in general - not to a private company.  If there was a similar proposal in Australia, I would be protesting long and loud!

MarieC

Spot on Marie, and hopefully it will never be needed, but I fear more for the future of local archives, specially with proposals about for "virtual" councils, i.e. meet once a year to award the contracts,every service out for private tender.

[MarieC]

That doesn't sound very good at all, Redroger!  One does indeed wonder what will happen to the local archives under that scenario.   It's amazing to me that a country like the UK with such a long and brilliant history could even consider endangering the sources by which people can study this history.  Sometimes I'm tempted to think that we all live in an age of new barbarism. 

MarieC

[kerryb]

Selling off is just one possibility.  There has been a tendency over the last few years to merge offices together.   One example is the merger of the Tax and Customs offices.   It may be possible that the NA could be merged with the GRO and Passport Offices, although the logisitics of moving either of them could be quite daunting.

And in all of this spending review, we so often see ideas which mean actually spending a heck of a lot more money than is actually saved.  Who is in charge anyway?

Maybe the NA being sold off to a private company is not such a bad idea, maybe they could run things more efficiently??!!!!!

Kerry

[Nick29]

I don't think the situation is as grave as many are fearing.  In common with lots of other countries, we are all having to tighten our finances, and so proposals have been made for finding ways to save money.  But that's all they are - proposals.

[Redroger]

Depends what you call efficiency, there is financial efficiency where everything is run on the sole basis of making a profit; the essence of the very system that caused the mess, and there is efficiacy, effectiveness in providing a service. Whilst an effective service may be financially efficient it doesn't have to be, it can be subsidised by the taxpayers, why not? after all we are subsidising many things which I regard as less desirable than archive national or local.

[Greensleeves]

I am sorry if this thread has been taken as political because I hadn't intended it to be partial to one side or the other; to be honest I don't think the previous government was any better.  I cite here Ordnance Survey which, after years of co-operation with external bodies, was then reorganised into a profit-making organisation,  resulting in bodies which  had freely given OS their spatial data then being charged to have it back.  The confusion is compounded by the fact that OS retains its Crown copyright which means that any infringement is a criminal, rather than a civil, offence.

I know that this is not strictly on the original subject, but I am just pointing out how things can go horribly wrong when profit is the primary motive.  I would not like the National Archives to be subject to this kind of 'market forces' management, any more than I like the way OS is greedy for profit.   At least with OS, people who are getting fed up with the current regime are now looking into open-source spatial imagery.  But with National Archives, there will be no alternative, and they are, or at least I had hoped they would be, one of the  guardians of our national heritage.